Tim Cahill for governor

By: Gary Lowell

Posted: 3/4/10

As my article on February 11 shows, I do not have a favorable view of political parties, particularly the Democratic and Republican parties. I see political parties as hurting, not helping, the democratic process. As my article in last week's paper shows, I think that the federal government has gone beyond its means and continues to spend a much higher amount of money than it gets in revenue, thus resulting in ever increasing debt. Although that article was directed towards the national government, the same thing can be said for most state governments, Massachusetts included.

Massachusetts continues to have trouble with deficits most fiscal years. In fact, the budget for 2010 fiscal year is $300 million to $500 million in the red, even after Deval Patrick and the State Legislature took steps to reduce the deficit. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the 2010 fiscal budget relies on one time funds, so the 2011 fiscal budget faces a deficit of $3 billion.

As a result of my dislike of political parties and my worry over ever increasing debt, I was very happy to learn that Tim Cahill is running for Governor of Massachusetts. A former Democrat, Cahill left the party because he reportedly became estranged from it. He said he left the Democratic party because its philosophy hurts more than helps in the realm of the economy and jobs. Running for Governor as an Independent is a big plus in my book because it seems more likely that he would not be beholden to party and special interests.

I was also happy to learn about Cahill's position on spending. He has said that cutting spending is the way to get the budget under control. On his campaign website, he says the government already has enough money to operate and "Government, like all of us, must live within its means." When asked on WRKO what spending should be cut, he said spending should be cut pretty much across the board, with a few exceptions like education and local aid. As the Treasurer of Massachusetts, it seems to me that Cahill would have a good idea on how to get the state's budget under control.

Government has gotten too big, with legislators thinking that the solution to most problems is the government, whether federal or state, enacting legislation to "solve" the problem. More often than not, though, government "solutions" to problems do not solve the problem and are extremely expensive. That is why the real solution to our current economic problems is not enacting new legislation that will most likely increase the level of government spending and be counterproductive. The real solution is actually reducing the amount of government spending; otherwise, it seems likely that the federal and state governments will keep adding to their debt, and eventually make the dollar worthless.

At the time of the 2006 election, I was not as distrustful of political parties as I am now. Consequently, I did not have a problem voting for the Democratic candidate: Deval Patrick. After he was elected, there were numerous news stories that seemed to me as if he was wasting money, such as getting an expensive new car and using a helicopter to fly across the state. In addition, Patrick supported a move to bring casinos to Massachusetts, which I do not think is a good idea. These incidents, along with others, served to make me withdraw my support for Patrick. They also make me believe that Patrick would simply be unable or unwilling to get Massachusetts out of its current economic problems.

As I see it, Democrats and Republicans are, in most cases, simply too interested in following party interests. So if a Republican were to get elected, he or she would likely advocate lowering the taxes to solve the economic problem, but would most likely not also advocate reducing spending. If a Democrat were elected, he or she would likely advocate increased taxes on the "rich" to cover deficits, but would likely not advocate reducing spending.

I simply do not understand how both parties can actually think that their respective solutions would actually get us out of the current economic situation. I see no reason to think that the Republican or Democratic solutions would actually solve the problem. When Republicans reduce taxes, they seem to either leave spending the same or increase spending, which would not reduce the deficit. When Democrats increase taxes on the "rich," they seem to increase spending, which would not reduce the deficit.

Both of those approaches are essentially the same thing, since they are not going after what is actually causing the problem: out of control spending. If Massachusetts hopes to get deficits under control, it needs to cuts spending. Cahill has come out and said that is what he thinks should be done. Since he is an Independent, he is more trustworthy in my eyes than a Republican or Democrat and I therefore believe that he is serious about wanting to cut spending.

Massachusetts is a very heavily Democratic state, at least in terms of representatives in the State House. Of all the people who are not Democrats, the rest are Republicans. This seems to create only two ideologies in the State House: reduce taxes, but not spending, or increase taxes on the "rich," but increase spending. It seems to me that it would be a good change to get someone in the Governor's office who is not a member of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, or any other political party, which may serve to break this destructive cycle. For that reason, I will be voting for Tim Cahill in this year's gubernatorial election.